Paying for overreach

December 18, 2012|Kendall P. Stanley

When unions in the state sought to put collective bargaining in the state Constitution voters took exception to that in November -- overwhelmingly as it turned out. And with that trick, state Republicans figured now is the time to make Michigan a right to work state.Bam! Just like that, right to work made its way through the Legislature and was promptly signed by our tough nerd governor, Rick Snyder, last Tuesday. Never mind right to work wasn't on his agenda because it apparently was definitely on some other people's agenda. In fact, I'm surprised it didn't come up before.Try as you might, what effect of the passage of right-to-work will be remains shrouded in mystery and conflicting studies and reports from across the country.As Brad Plumer noted in The Washington Post, "So what effects do these laws have? There's a dizzying amount of research on the subject, but a few broad conclusions have emerged over the years: Right-to-work laws do weaken labor unions. The laws appear to tilt the balance of power so that workers reap fewer of the gains from growth. And it's still hard to find definitive evidence that right-to-work laws help (or harm) a state's overall economy."In large part it's hard to look at the overall economic impact because so few private sector workers are unionized -- only about 7 percent. Michigan is higher at 17.5 percent but that's still a very minority group.There are some things that will happen for sure -- there will be freeloaders, those folks who won't pay union dues and won't join but who will happily take the pay and benefits negotiated between the company and union.There may very well be businesses that move to Michigan now that it is a right-to-work state -- but as Plumer noted one respected study shows while businesses moved in, the benefit of right-to-work meant lower wages for the workers -- and more profits for the owners. Are we surprised? No, we're not.There are all kinds of peripheral studies as well -- workplace accidents and fatalities, etc., but really they don't shed much light on the issue either.What is glaringly apparent is how far union power has eroded. There was a time in the not so distant past that legislators wouldn't have dared bring right to work up for a vote. That train has apparently left the station.Michigan will now be starkly divided between pro- and anti-union folks and we will have to wait and see how this will all shake out. A referendum is a dicey proposition given court rulings and the vote back in November. Do the unions really want to get a spanking at the polls again? And if you don't think that could happen, just look across the pond to Wisconsin where Gov. Scott Walker survived a recall election after he took on the unions.And for all the anti-union folks out there, remember this -- the benefits reaped by union membership for millions of Michiganders over the decades made the middle class of Michigan the envy of the country with workers able to live comfortably, maybe have a cabin up north (where they spent money on the local economy), enabled them to send their children to college and finally, to retire comfortably.If you think large corporations would have provided those wages and benefits on their own, you're living in a dream world.

And more running amuckAs if the lame duckers were satisfied with turning this state to a right to work haven, the social conservatives among them were also having their field day by moving legislation allowing medical practitioners to refuse service because of "moral objections," adding legislation to make abortion coverage more difficult to obtain in the state through insurance companies and adding additional restrictions on abortion clinics.The moral objection bill would allow health care providers and facilities to refuse service based on a moral objection, religious reasons or matters of conscience (however you may define those).My conscience says if I seek medical treatment I should get it without having to go through a kabuki dance with a practitioner or hospital as to whether or not what I needed or asked for upset their sense of morality or religion, let alone what their "conscience" was telling them.This is cloaked in the ephemeral veil of "religious liberty" but it is not. On its face, religious liberty is the ability to practice one's religion freely, openly and without discrimination.Don't want to dispense birth control? Fine, don't be an OB/GYN or pharmacist. If I were a woman with a valid birth control prescription and a pharmacist refused to fill it because of this woe begotten law there'd be blood in the aisles. That may be a little harsh but in many towns you don't just go to another pharmacy because there isn't one. And really, why should you have to?The insurance legislation was tucked inside the bill to change the status of Blue Cross/Blue Shield but applies to all insurers and it basically says policies issued under upcoming health insurance exchanges would not include coverage for elective abortions unless the woman asks and pays for a rider to have elective abortion services included.As if women plan to have an abortion sometime in the future. Rather than being covered if you need it, it becomes you get to pay for the coverage whether or not you may, sometime, maybe, far far down the road need it.Initially it looked like this applied to all current policy of insurers, but it is apparently just for the health insurance exchange policies. It's all confusing but then again, what's new with the Michigan Legislature?Of course Michigan Right to Life and the Michigan Catholic Conference are delighted. But switching to a little more business friendly hat here, where does the Michigan Legislature get off dictating what services and coverage a privately held insurance company provides? As a medically valid procedure, it should be up to the company whether or not they want their policies to include elective abortion coverage or not -- not the boys' club called the Michigan Legislature.Finally, the abortion clinic bill requires the clinics to meet the regulations of a regular surgical clinic when there is absolutely no need for that. And, of course, the physician has to determine if the woman is being coerced into having an abortion.All forced bluster to make it more difficult for a woman to obtain an abortion. For Right to Life, this little flurry of legislative activity is a result of what they claim is 25 years of work. But if you think they are done working you are completely wrong. Beware the mixing of Right to Life and the state Legislature.

Kendall P. Stanley is retired editor of the Petoskey News-Review. He can be contacted at kendallstanley@charter.net.